The Instigator
DStallman
Pro (for)
The Contender
DumbellDoor
Con (against)

Time is not a dimension

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
DumbellDoor has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open with Elo Restrictions Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/24/2017 Category: Science
Updated: 11 months ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 363 times Debate No: 99255
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (4)
Votes (0)

 

DStallman

Pro

To be clear: As Pro, I will be arguing that time is not a dimension. For the purpose of the debate, alternatives to the claim that time is a dimension shall be saved for my debate rounds.

Rules:
1. There's not actually any rules, but if you apply any fallacies you'll probably be called out on them.

2. Okay, so there is one rule, but it's not really a rule: if Con uses Round 1 for debate, they cannot use Round 4 for debate. Seems pretty standtard procedure around here.

That's about it. Con should be trying to prove that time is a dimension.

Oh, and for this debate, we'll be using the Oxford Dictionary of English's definition of dimension: a measurable extent of a particular kind, such as length, breadth, depth, or height. The debate may challenge the interpretation of this meaning, as it seems to be intentionally left vague.

Finally, here is a handy poster of common fallacies. Try to avoid these and I'll do the same:
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...
DumbellDoor

Con

I accept and will be taking a more philosophical and abstract angle in order to win. This debate never stated a physical space dimension, which is going to be the crux of my attack.
Debate Round No. 1
DStallman

Pro

Thanks for accepting. I hadn't originally planned on taking a philosophical angle, but I suppose it makes sense to do that.

I'll begin by addressing the argument of perception. "Time", as I'm sure you're aware, stems from human perception, as do the three measurable dimensions in which we exist, these being length width and height. Perception is, of course, unreliable in a philosophical sense, as my perception of the universe and yours may be vastly different (hence the "Is Red Red for Everyone?" debate as to whether each person sees their own unique set of colors). As such, arguments regarding the perception of time either proving or disproving its existence as a dimension, while not invalid obviously, do seem counterintuitive, as calling into question its perception brings up an entirely new set of issues for debate.

For this reason, I will primarily focus on the non-philosophical aspects of time. Time is a measurable quantity, but that does not make it a dimension. Stay with me here, but I believe that time is just an alternative method of observing length, which varies based on the tools used for measuring. For example, most clocks run on electric current; typically, a small piece of quartz will "pulse", as it were, at a regular rate, allowing the electric current to travel through at particular intervals. It is by measuring this distance accurately and transferring this information through a complex set of mechanism that time is measured. Time, then, is defined by the distance of a hand moving across a clock face, or the length of a electrical signal which lights up a digital display.

When a object moves from Point A to Point B in, say, 10 seconds, the seconds are actually the measure of a variable on the recording device itself. By applying this variable to the formula for velocity, for example, in addition to another, separate measure of distance called length, we can determine how many intervals occurred during the period of the object's motion from point to point.

"A period of what?" you ask, certainly hoping that I'll see that I've back myself into a corner with my own argument. In this case it would be the period of... time. See, just because time isn't a dimension doesn't mean that it is not an observable variable in measurement. It is measurable, just as much as force or mass or resistance. The issue is that it is not a separate entity from length width, and height.

With the three dimensions, we can measure anything. A book may be 13 cm x 20 cm x 3 cm. Time is not a quantifiable dimension in the sense that the book does not require motion to be measured. The only point in which the variable time applies is during motion, and even then, the dimensions of the book are not altered by the "passing" of time, such as other non-dimensions like acceleration, which would be affected by including the measurement of time.

There are multiple arguments other than the one I've described above to prove that time is not a dimension, but since there's multiple rounds of debate, I'll save them for later.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Amarandum 11 months ago
Amarandum
Ah, man! I would have loved to take this debate. DStallman, if DumbellDoor doesn't respond, feel free to challenge me to this debate.
Posted by DStallman 11 months ago
DStallman
I mean, you could always accept the debate if it's actually a fact that it's not.
Posted by jo154676 11 months ago
jo154676
Don't you think its hard to argue against fact?
Posted by EggsAndSam 12 months ago
EggsAndSam
Dimension of...
There are multiple types of dimensions...
This debate has 4 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.